Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

No MLB reliever had a 30-save season until 1965, and there were no 40-save seasons until 1983

Needless to say, this has something to do with using relievers in save situations at all. Since the mid-1980s, about half of all wins have been saved; that rate has remained almost invariable. But from the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s, only about 40% of wins were saved, and before that (mid-50s through mid-60s), about 30%, and so forth: fewer and fewer saves as you go back. (Of course for most of those decades the "save" was not in the scoring conventions, but it's figured retrospectively.)

That's a huge part of the explanation for closers starting to record higher save totals. There are many others: it was definitely common in the 1960s and 70s to have a couple of aces record longer-outing saves alternately, and one can argue whether that's better than the solitary single-inning closer doctrine.

I know everyone here knows this, but it can't be said enough...THIS IS NOT TRUE. not really. You can't compare save percentages from different eras because of the way the blown save stat is created and the changing nature of the bullpens. Blown saves also include blown holds in the stat, while holds are not included in the percentage. You cannot quote save percentage and ever be talking about anything of meaning, because the numbers are total bunk. If you want to talk about an individual pitcher who has spent his entire life from the pen as a closer, save percentage has some value. Beyond that, none.

One of my friends who is new to baseball asked me the other day why managers so aggressively seek the platoon advantage with their bullpen at all times except save situations

We've had analogous discussions here when somebody wonders aloud why there are virtually no left-handed closers. Someone else will explain that there are too many right-handed hitters for that to work, which begs the question of why there are any left-handed starters. Some of these doctrines simply have to be traced to superstition. Managers are fanatical about gaming the platoon situation – except with starters and closers and right-handed eighth-inning men; and no lefty inferior to Aroldis Chapman must ever be allowed on the mound in the ninth. Eye of newt, and toe of frog.

One of my friends who is new to baseball asked me the other day why managers so aggressively seek the platoon advantage with their bullpen at all times except save situations

The truth of the matter is that it's hard to get good pitchers, and the platoon advantage helps add a small edge, but when you are looking at closers, as a general rule, they are the "good pitchers" and to go with a lesser pitcher for a platoon advantage would still not make up for the quality difference between the two pitchers.

We've had analogous discussions here when somebody wonders aloud why there are virtually no left-handed closers. Someone else will explain that there are too many right-handed hitters for that to work, which begs the question of why there are any left-handed starters. Some of these doctrines simply have to be traced to superstition. Managers are fanatical about gaming the platoon situation – except with starters and closers and right-handed eighth-inning men; and no lefty inferior to Aroldis Chapman must ever be allowed on the mound in the ninth. Eye of newt, and toe of frog.

Population percentage of left handed batters is much higher than population percentage of left handed people. If you look at a random year (I'm going with 2012) you'll see that the number of plate appearances between left handed batter and right handed batter isn't that big of a gap. Out of the 184179 plate appearances in the majors last year, 103703(56.3%) were by right handed, and 80476(43.6%) were by lefties. Add in that the platoon advantage is a much more obvious factor when it comes to lefty on lefty than it is for righty on righty, and there is a legitimate reason for left handed starters.

Edit: To point to my platoon comment, again just using 2012.. pitching splits last year.

Yep. If everybody does X, and you try Y, and fail, you're out the door. There are just so many jobs in baseball: if you follow the crowd and get a little lucky, you can have a decent career. If not, you gotta get a real job.

"Managers are fanatical about gaming the platoon situation – except with starters and closers and right-handed eighth-inning men; and no lefty inferior to Aroldis Chapman must ever be allowed on the mound in the ninth. Eye of newt, and toe of frog."

This must be hanging on the wall of the Cubs manager, since I can see no other reason to trot out the gas cans they have been in the 9th instead of James Russell...